How Humans Use Animals
abracad, · Categories: spiritual politics, spiritualityHumans have a historically complex relationship with animals. On the one hand we use (abuse?) them as a food source, for experimentation in pursuit of knowledge (etc), and even as sport/amusement. On the other hand domesticated pets in many cases enjoy better lives than many people and we value them as our closest companions, eg "man's best friend" is his dog!
How we use animals is a subset of the humongous issue of morality, ie what is right/wrong and whether such ideals even objectively exist. It is doubtful that it is possible to give an absolute definition of morality since the concept differs widely between societies, individuals, and even within a single society or individual as time passes (as witnessed by the continual process of passing/amending legislation - the closest we have to a formal description of morality). The very asking of the question pre-supposes that humans possess free will, otherwise it would be pointless to consider. Given these qualifications I attempt to present a personal view of the matter.
Human beings, by virtue of having the highest intellect, have control over "lower" animals. As such the fate of animals lies at our mercy. Many (but not all) societies have enacted (varying) laws recognizing the "rights" of animals, ie: "Many jurisdictions around the world have enacted statutes which forbid cruelty to some animals." Where they exist: "Laws concerning animal cruelty are designed to prevent needless cruelty to animals". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals]
Philosopher Rene Descartes ("I think therefore I am") postulated Cartesian dualism (that humans have some non-material soul in addition to their physical body) considered animals as mere machines devoid of soul [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/]. I believe a large majority of pet owners would take issue with this.
Spiritualism remains a gray area for science, much evidence of Spirit communication and other psychic functioning exists but is still denied mainstream acceptance. As a Spiritualist I have personally experienced considerable evidence over many years. A common belief held by many Spiritualist mediums is that animals have distinct souls just as humans do which transcend physical death. A further belief is that all incarnate souls emanate from a single source (God).
If there is some absolute concept of morality it likely seeks to maximize the total "good" under its realm of consideration (planet earth?), ie it weighs total gain against total loss. If we consider animals to be capable of feelings (happiness, fear, pain etc.) then their feelings feature along with those of humans in that evaluation.
Another approach is offered by philosopher John Rawls' concept of "original position"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position]. A number of people have the power to create the rules of a society they will inhabit, but they do so in ignorance of the position they will inhabit within that society. Traditionally Rawls' argument considers uncertainty over one's gender, race, age, intelligence, wealth, skills, education, and religion; however, it could just as easily extend to species.
On these bases my considered view is that using animals for research should only be acceptable where the resulting benefit outweighs the cost. If a limited number of animals are sacrificed in order that suffering be eliminated (even animal suffering through veterinary medicine) on a much larger scale in the future I would consider that to be acceptable. However, if animals are used to test cosmetics so that vain people can safely decorate themselves I would consider the costs far outweigh the benefits and such trivial (ab)uses of animals should be outlawed.
As we cannot know whether animals have the capacity to suffer then, to avoid causing unnecessary suffering, we should refrain from potentially cruel actions in the absence of very strong justification. Where animals are used for research or to provide food every effort should be made to ensure that, given their context, their quality of life is maximized and their degree of suffering minimized. In this area every one of us has the power to influence animal welfare through economic choice, eg only buying free range eggs or non-animal tested sun screen etc.
Spiritual philosophy suggests inflicting "cruelty" upon animals is tantamount to inflicting cruelty upon our source (and ourselves, since we are all fundamentally one). As such, unnecessary cruelty is wrong.
See also:
Filed in: spiritual politics, spirituality
Leave a Reply